My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV00920
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV00920
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:58:34 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 8:48:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981071
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/13/1985
Doc Name
PN 79-177 MID TERM REVIEW
From
CYCC
To
MLRD
Type & Sequence
MT1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PERMIT 79-177, MID-TERM REVIEW <br />MAY 13, 1985 <br />PAGE SIX <br />RESPONSE: <br />CYCC agrees in concept with the proposed bonding calculations con- <br />tained in Attachment A relating to the CYCC Mine Bond of $9,884,100 <br />and the amount posted in the Foidel Creek permit relating to the Pit <br />2 reclamation of $905,190.00. However, upon reviewing the bonding <br />calculations, CYCC has discovered an error used in calculating the <br />original bond. Specifically, the $611.00 per acre revegeatation <br />cost presented on page 79 applies only to the post-mining land use <br />areas involving rangeland which have a woody plant density standard. <br />Considerable acreage at CYCC exists for pastureland and cropland <br />areas which do not have a woody plant density requirement. CYCC is <br />in the process of revising this figure and will submit a revised <br />bond figure by June 3, 1985. <br />CYCC is of the opinion that the CMLRD is in the process of reevalu- <br />ating the concept of a maintenance bond for areas reseeded, but not <br />yet released from bond. Specifically, in discussion with Sandy <br />Brown and Fred Banta between Mike McCarthy and Kent Crofts in the <br />Coal Operators meeting on May 2, we were instructed that the CMLRD <br />was reviewing this concept and until a final decision was reached, <br />it would not be necessary to post a maintenance bond as instructed <br />in your February 26, 1985 letter. <br />If there are any additional questions or concerns, please contact me. <br />Sincerely, <br />Richard Hughes <br />Environmental Specialist <br />RH/kmk <br />cc: M. Kondelis <br />K. Crofts <br />L. Damrau <br />1 ~ <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.